Get Herald RSSThe Office of Admission is busy these days, processing applications and selecting the best students for the class of 2012. The office is also sorting through the files of prospective varsity athletes, but for them, the office must consider one more thing.
The Academic Index system governs Ivy League institutions when it comes to accepting recruited athletes. The AI is a number assigned to each student in the eight-school athletics conference, whether he or she is an athlete or not, based on a formula that factors in standardized test scores and high school class rank or grade-point average. The standard is higher than normal NCAA Division I eligibility requirements.
Every Ivy League school has an average AI for its student body. For varsity athletes, that average must remain within one standard deviation of each school's overall average.
In addition, each athlete must have a minimum AI to be admitted to an Ivy League school. But athletes below the minimum AI could be admitted if his or her AI is below this floor for a non-athletic reason.
The system is unique to the Ivy League, which distinguishes itself from other Division I schools because it does not offer athletic scholarships. It was first implemented in 1985 because of changes in admissions. Before 1985, there were no regulations governing recruiting of high school athletes.
"In the 60s, 70s and early 80s the Ivy League had gone through a lot of changes in admissions," said Jeff Orleans, the outgoing executive director of the Council of Ivy Group Presidents. "We started admitting women, stopped being exclusively white, had more public school graduates and became need blind."
The AI was devised and implemented by the Ivy presidents as a "basic, common way of approaching recruiting student-athletes" and a way of providing a "common vocabulary," Orleans said.
Furthermore, the AI attempts to ensure that recruited athletes are up to Ivy League academic snuff.
"My sense was that it was an attempt to level the recruiting playing field so schools were recruiting students that were more representative academically of the student population," said Dean of Admission Jim Miller '73.
At first, the AI applied only to the football, men's basketball and men's hockey teams, Orleans said. In those sports, the class of 1990 was the first in which all athletes from those three sports had to meet AI requirements.
Orleans said that over the years, the system has been tweaked repeatedly. Twice, the number of football players to be admitted at each school has been reduced. Orleans said the size of football teams were reduced and that Ivy League presidents wanted to give their admission deans more freedom as their institutions became more selective.
In 1994, a system of "banding" was implemented, Orleans said. There are four bands - similar to a quartile system - that each encompass a range of AI scores. Every year, each varsity sports team is allowed a certain number of players in each band. This system attempts to prevent "boosting," in which one student with a high AI could balance a number of students with low AIs.
A big change came in 2002, when the presidents decided to include all varsity sports in the AI.
The rule also sets a rolling four-year limit on how many varsity athletes a school sponsors, Orleans said. Club sports that are not under the league's jurisdiction, such as equestrian, skiing and sailing, are not included under any of these regulations.
The system achieves oversight by mandating that the AIs of all athletes at any given school be shared with the admission deans of the seven other schools, Orleans aid. As its history makes evident, the system is often reevaluated, and not everyone is always happy with it.
"It certainly has faults," said men's soccer Head Coach Mike Noonan, "but I haven't been presented with something better."
Though the AI creates a formulaic aspect to admission, there is still a lot of freedom for admission offices.
"My feeling is that each institution is autonomous within guidelines and can do what they want," said Director of Athletics Michael Goldberger, who was Brown's director of admission before taking his current position. "Each individual (admissions) officer makes decisions based on (an athlete's) character and what they bring to the institution."
Miller had a similar assessment, calling the AI a "macro measure."
"It is a set of bars and each institution makes its own decisions. It's not formulaic," he said.
Noonan said he felt the system was important for maintaining academic standards as well, though it can be a hindrance to his recruiting.
"It's a tool that is used and it's more effective than ineffective at making sure that the academic integrity of the league is adhered to."
Though athletes are considered for admission based on their entire application, the Department of Athletics has to follow more rigid guidelines than do other University departments that try to recruit students.
There is no league-wide policy regarding admissions for musicians, who are also highly sought. At Brown, if students have pursued music in high school, they send in a CD with their application, which the admission office then sends to the music department for evaluation. Assistant Director of Admission Momoho Takao, the liaison to the music department, said the department gives a rating to the CD and sends it back to the admissions office.
"The music department gives a rating, and if that rating is strong, it helps them," Takao said. "We don't set a bar. We don't have a specific number. It's not as concrete (as athletics). Most Brown students are in the top 10 percent (of their class) in high school. It is important to have music be the same. It is also important to campus to have a healthy musical community."
Goldberger used a slightly different 10 percent marker as a yardstick for athletes.
"The typical athlete would be in the top 10 percent of students going to college," he said, though he was skeptical of using class rank as a formulaic measure for admission because it varies so widely among high schools.
In the case of both music and athletics, department priorities also factor into the admissions decision.
"It is not only if they are a talented musician, but if they are a certain type of musician," Takao said.
The music department provides a list of priority instruments to the admissions office every year based on need. The admissions office and music department stay in close contact before and throughout the admissions process, especially regarding instruments high on the priority list.
In athletics, the AI must be kept in consideration. The AI only requires that total varsity athlete population average out to within one standard deviation of the general population, so there is a lot of flexibility among individuals and teams. As students graduate, it leaves holes in certain positions, making these positions priorities.
Individual teams "think in four-year cycles," Miller said.
Each team is also aware of the AI and what their team goal should be.
"We try to come up with admissions patterns for teams that let them have a consistency and predictability," Miller said.
Still, both Miller and Goldberger admitted that not all teams may be equal in terms of their AI contribution. Within the system, schools can privilege certain teams if they choose, admitting students with lower AIs as long as they are balanced by another team. This prioritizing occurs on a school-by-school and year-by-year basis.
Squash player Adam Greenberg '10 said he doesn't favor the AI system because he thinks potential recruits' low AIs have kept them from being admitted.
"I don't like the system because it does not favor my team," Greenberg said. "But I think the system as a whole is effective at what its trying to do."
